General Election 2007

Vote "yes' on all but two statewide judges standing for retention

November 04, 2007|The Morning Call

Voters will be asked on Tuesday whether seven Pennsylvania appellate jurists get to stay on the bench for another 10 years. In these nonpartisan retention races (the candidates' political party affiliation isn't part of the question), voters cast either a "yes" or "no" ballot.

It used to be that a judge's retention was virtually guaranteed. Then there was the 2005 pay raise controversy, and voters denied former Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro another term because of Chief Justice Ralph Cappy's behind-the-scenes role in the pay hikes.

Voters still are angry. So, too, are grass-roots groups like PACleanSweep, which is urging voters to vote "no" on all judges seeking retention. Our view is that while a protest against the Supreme Court, which has not been an effective check on the abuses of the General Assembly is understandable, a top-to-bottom "no" vote is irresponsible. Displeasure with the Supreme Court shouldn't indiscriminately be translated into displeasure with the other appellate courts. Voters have a duty, hard as it is, to evaluate whether the other jurists should continue serving. Most do. Some don't.

If voters just followed the Pennsylvania Bar Association's evaluations, they'd retain all these jurists. That's what the PBA recommended. But the PBA had recommended Superior Court Judge Michael T. Joyce be retained before he was indicted. Yet, the PBA recommendations are a useful starting point.

For good and bad, the pay raise has injected interest and contention into retention races that didn't exist before. The public uproar from the pay raise was immediate, and it has endured. The question that underlies the protest is whether a true balance of power exists in Pennsylvania government. Or, are the courts complicit in what used to be called a "gentlemen's agreement" between the branches of government? Voters have an opportunity to do something about this in this election.

Even before the Supreme Court decided to protect the judiciary's salary increases, Justice Saylor knew he would be up for retention this year. His lone dissent on the court's pay raise was hardly a comfort. Yes, he objected to the majority's reasoning, but he agreed with their conclusion to uphold the raises for judges. This allowed him to post his opinion as a dissent. More troubling, however, has been his unwillingness to uphold the plain reading of the state constitution in regard to the 2004 slots law. Pennsylvania needs justices willing to uphold the state constitution all the time. Over the years he has contributed to the court, but in the state constitution, these are not lifetime positions. Vote "no" on Justice Saylor.

We also need judges willing to stay above the political fray rather than pander to it. But Superior Court Judge Stevens, a former state lawmaker from Hazleton, couldn't resist advocating state laws to address illegal immigration during this campaign. Forget that immigration is a federal responsibility, not one for the state, what does this say about whether he would give an immigration-related case a fair hearing? Judge Stevens showed poor judgment in inserting himself here. Vote "no" on retaining Judge Stevens.

Voters shouldn't use the pay raise, or the fact that most judges kept it, as a deciding factor. None of the remaining judges up for retention had any part in the Supreme Court ruling, although, one, Judge Orie Melvin, at least rejected the raise.